AMD EPYC 8224P vs Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX Comparison

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX and AMD EPYC 8224P represent opposite ends of the computing spectrum, yet both land at the 95th percentile among all CPUs. Their overall average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the Intel part at 76155 and the AMD part at 75582, a difference of less than one percent. However, a deep dive into the individual benchmark results reveals two completely different performance profiles, with the Intel chip winning 11 of the 17 head-to-head comparisons, while the AMD EPYC takes the remaining 6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in this comparison is the Cinebench R23 single-core test. The AMD EPYC 8224P scores 5450, which is a massive 59.9% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX’s 2187.5. This is not a close contest by any measure. The EPYC’s lead is further solidified in the Cinebench R15 single-core test, where it scores 549 versus 323.5 for the Intel, a 41.1% advantage. Interestingly, the Cinebench R20 single-core test flips the script: the Intel wins with 2856 against the EPYC’s 2289, a 24.8% margin. This inconsistency across Cinebench versions is notable, but the R23 result carries the most weight as the more modern benchmark.

In multi-core workloads, the results are mixed. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX wins decisively in Cinebench R15 multi-core with a score of 5656.5, which is 45.4% higher than the EPYC’s 3891. The Intel chip also leads in Cinebench R20 multi-core with 20236 versus 16214, a 24.8% advantage. However, the AMD EPYC 8224P turns the tables in Cinebench R23 multi-core, scoring 38607 against the Intel’s 36429.5, a 5.6% lead for AMD. This suggests that the newer Cinebench version favors the EPYC’s architecture in sustained multi-threaded rendering.

The PassMark suite provides a broader picture of workload performance. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX shows overwhelming dominance in several areas. In PassMark find prime numbers, it scores 460 against the EPYC’s 206, a staggering 123.3% lead. Floating point math also heavily favors Intel, with a score of 194998 versus 104698, an 86.2% advantage. The single-thread score is similarly lopsided, with Intel at 4618 and AMD at 2339, representing a 97.4% lead for Intel. These results indicate that the Intel architecture is far more efficient at handling certain types of calculations, particularly those that rely on high clock speeds and low latency.

Conversely, the AMD EPYC 8224P wins in integer math, scoring 185556 against the Intel’s 155076, a 16.4% lead. It also wins in data compression with 702065 versus 631885, a 10% margin, and in random string sorting with 81674 versus 77196, a 5.5% advantage. The data encryption test is close, with Intel winning 48567 to 46742, a 3.9% margin. The PassMark multithread score goes to Intel with 56902 against 45421, a 25.3% lead, and the physics test also favors Intel with 3476 versus 3236, a 7.4% win.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX is clearly the winner for workloads that depend on high single-thread throughput and specific math operations. Its 97.4% lead in PassMark single-thread and 123.3% lead in prime number finding make it the obvious choice for applications like interactive modeling, spreadsheet calculations, and any software that is not heavily parallelized. Its 86.2% advantage in floating-point math also makes it suitable for scientific simulations and some forms of financial modeling that require extensive decimal calculations. The 25.3% win in PassMark multithread also suggests it handles general multi-threaded productivity tasks better, despite the EPYC having twice the threads.

The AMD EPYC 8224P, on the other hand, is the winner for server-style workloads that involve large datasets and memory bandwidth. Its wins in integer math, data compression, and random string sorting point to strengths in database operations, file compression, and data transformation tasks. The 5.6% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core is also significant, as it indicates that the EPYC’s 48 threads, despite lower clock speeds, can sustain high throughput in long-duration rendering tasks. The EPYC’s 41.1% and 59.9% wins in Cinebench R15 and R23 single-core tests, respectively, are an anomaly, but they cannot be ignored; in these specific benchmarks, the AMD chip offers dramatically better per-core performance.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX uses the Arrow Lake architecture, specifically Arrow Lake-HX, and is fabricated on a 3 nm process by TSMC. It features 24 cores and 24 threads, meaning it has no hyperthreading. The AMD EPYC 8224P uses the Zen 4c architecture, codenamed Siena, and is built on a 5 nm process, also by TSMC. It also has 24 cores but supports simultaneous multithreading, giving it 48 threads.

The transistor counts are nearly identical, with Intel at 17,800 million and AMD at 17,750 million. However, the die size tells a different story. Intel’s die is 243 mm², while AMD uses two separate dies, each measuring 73 mm², for a combined area of 146 mm². This means AMD packs a similar number of transistors into a smaller total area, which is a hallmark of the dense Zen 4c design.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The Intel part has a larger L1 cache at 192 KB per core and a larger L2 cache at 3 MB per core, which is likely a contributor to its single-thread performance. The AMD part has 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core. However, the AMD EPYC has a much larger shared L3 cache at 64 MB, compared to Intel’s 36 MB. This larger L3 cache is critical for server workloads that access large datasets repeatedly.

The memory controllers are also drastically different. Intel uses a dual-channel DDR5 interface with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. AMD uses a six-channel DDR5 interface with 230.4 GB/s of bandwidth, more than double the Intel’s throughput. This explains the EPYC’s wins in memory-intensive tasks like data compression and integer math.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX | AMD EPYC 8224P |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 24 | 24 |

| Threads | 24 | 48 |

| Base Clock | 2.80 GHz | 2.55 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.50 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| TDP | 55 W | 160 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 2114 | AMD Socket SP6 |

| Process Node | 3 nm | 5 nm |

| L1 Cache | 192 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 3 MB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 36 MB (shared) | 64 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Six-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 230.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 20 Lanes | Gen 5, 96 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Arc Xe-LPG 64EU | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2025-01-12 | 2023-09-17 |

| Unlocked Multiplier | Yes | No |

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has a much higher boost clock of 5.50 GHz compared to the EPYC’s 3.00 GHz, which is a primary driver of its massive single-thread wins. The Intel part also has a much lower TDP of 55 W versus the EPYC’s 160 W, making it far more power-efficient. The EPYC, however, offers 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes versus Intel’s 20, which is essential for server expansion. The Intel chip includes integrated graphics, while the AMD part does not. The Intel chip has an unlocked multiplier, while the AMD part is locked. The Intel part was released later, on 2025-01-12, compared to the EPYC’s 2023-09-17.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-thread performance in the PassMark suite?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX is significantly ahead, scoring 4618 in PassMark single-thread versus the AMD EPYC 8224P’s 2339, a 97.4% lead for Intel.

Q: The AMD EPYC has twice the threads of the Intel chip. Why doesn’t it win all multi-threaded tests?

A: While the EPYC has 48 threads versus 24 for Intel, the Intel part has a 5.50 GHz boost clock versus 3.00 GHz for the AMD. In PassMark multithread, the Intel chip wins with 56902 versus 45421, a 25.3% margin, showing that clock speed can be more impactful than thread count in certain workloads.

Q: Which processor is better for memory bandwidth-intensive tasks?

A: The AMD EPYC 8224P, due to its six-channel memory bus providing 230.4 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the Intel’s dual-channel 102.4 GB/s. This is reflected in its wins in data compression (702065 vs 631885) and integer math (185556 vs 155076).

Q: How do the two processors compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core rendering?

A: The AMD EPYC 8224P wins this test with a score of 38607, which is 5.6% ahead of the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX’s 36429.5.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX has a TDP of 55 W, while the AMD EPYC 8224P has a TDP of 160 W. This makes the Intel part significantly more power-efficient on paper.

Q: Which processor offers more PCIe lanes?

A: The AMD EPYC 8224P offers 96 PCIe Gen 5 lanes, while the Intel Core Ultra 9 285HX offers 20. This makes the EPYC more suitable for server configurations with many expansion cards or NVMe drives.